The Supreme Court of India cancelled the bail of four individuals accused of a violent post-poll attack in West Bengal, deeming it a serious threat to democracy. The court mandated their surrender, expedited the trial to six months, and ensured protection for the victim and witnesses amid claims of political revenge.
![[False Post-Poll Violence Case] Cal HC Imposed Fine of Rs 10K Against the Parties](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/MicrosoftTeams-image-2-1.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Justice Amrita Sinha of the Calcutta High Court fined both the petitioner and defendant Rs 10,000 for involvement in a false post-poll violence case. The case, initially against individuals linked to the ruling party, was discovered to be fabricated. Both parties misled the court, leading to unnecessary proceedings, and the fines will be used to renovate women’s toilets in the High Court building.
On Friday(21st June)The Calcutta High Court has directed the West Bengal government to ensure the safe return of individuals displaced by recent post-poll violence, aiming to restore peace in affected areas. The court’s order, issued on June 21, underscores the urgency of addressing the plight of those affected and their immediate rehabilitation.
![[Post-Poll Violence] Calcutta HC Seeks Alternative Venue for Suvendu Adhikari's Planned Dharna Outside Raj Bhavan](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/image-8-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 19th June, The Calcutta High Court challenged Suvendu Adhikari’s plan for a protest and suggested an alternate venue, aiming to balance the right to protest with maintaining public order. Adhikari’s counsel argued for the protest at Raj Bhavan, but the court directed them to propose an alternative venue by the next hearing on June 21. The court also instructed the Advocate General to address previous violations of prohibitory orders.
![[Post-Poll Violence] "No Reservation if Central Forces Stay in Bengal Extended": Home Ministry to Cal HC](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/image-58.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, On 14th June, The Calcutta High Court allowed Suvendu Adhikari and post-poll violence victims to visit Raj Bhavan after their initial entry was impeded by police. The court questioned the governor’s “house arrest” status and directed Adhikari to seek permission for the visit. Allegations and denials were presented, and the court ordered a fresh request for the visit.
![[Post-Poll violence] Police not Allowing 'affected' People to meet Governor, Shubhendu Moves To HC, Matter will be heard Today](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/image-25-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Justice Amrita Singh has allowed the case to proceed to the scheduled 2 pm hearing after Subhendu Adhikari alleged police obstruction in meeting the governor regarding post-poll violence. The BJP leader criticized this action and filed a petition, while the party has been highlighting issues of affected individuals and raised concerns over Trinamool Congress’s alleged actions.
On Thursday(6th June),The Calcutta High Court firmly cautioned the Trinamool Congress (TMC) government about ongoing post-election violence in West Bengal, directing the Bengal Police to promptly intervene. Justices Kaushik Chanda and Apurba Sinha, on the bench, expressed grave apprehensions regarding the state’s law and order situation.
A petition submitted to the Calcutta High Court on June 6th requested police protection for opposition party workers due to alleged post-poll violence in certain areas of West Bengal after the Lok Sabha elections. The court allowed the petitioner to file the plea, with a vacation bench indicating that the matter might be addressed later in the day.
Today (8th May): The Supreme Court reserved judgment on West Bengal’s suit alleging misuse of the CBI by the Centre. The State contends that withdrawing consent for CBI investigations prevents probes in West Bengal. Arguments presented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta focused on the suit’s maintainability, administrative control, and relief sought, with the Court reserving its verdict.